New from Cambridge University Press!

Edited By Keith Allan and Kasia M. Jaszczolt

This book "fills the unquestionable need for a comprehensive and up-to-date handbook on the fast-developing field of pragmatics" and "includes contributions from many of the principal figures in a wide variety of fields of pragmatic research as well as some up-and-coming pragmatists."

INTRODUCTION The original work by Wachowitcz (1974) and, in particular, the study by Rudin (1988) have lead to the appearance of a new topic in research on wh-questions: multiple wh-fronting. In the recent years, and especially with an advent of Minimalism, the puzzling phenomenon of multiple wh-movement has generated a number of hypotheses that offer different solutions to the existing linguistic fact (see among others Cheng (1991), Grewendorf (1999), Simpson (1999, 2000)). The book, edited by Cedric Boeckx and Kleanthes K. Grohmann, is a collection of 12 papers (including the Introduction) that further develops this topic. The main question that linguists attempt to answer concerns the nature of multiple wh-movement. Minimalism does not allow superfluous steps and operations. If movement of a single wh-phrase suffices to check strong/uninterpretable feature, why do languages move all wh-expressions clause-initially? The contributors to this volume explore this issue on a large number of cross-linguistic data offering their solutions to the problem. A number of related issues are examined as well, among them Superiority Constraints, Wh-Focus interaction, multiple specifiers, extended CP field, remnant IP/TP movement.

DESCRIPTION The introduction by Cedric Boeckx and Kleanthes K. Grohmann (pp.1-15) offers a brief overview of research on multiple wh-fronting. The authors illustrate why the case of multiple wh-fronting gets so much attention in minimalist studies, namely the four reasons for a "successful marriage" between multiple wh-fronting and minimalism. The introduction also includes summaries of the articles contained in the book. Since a number of papers deal with the problem of Superiority, it is interesting to have the authors' observation that although Superiority is viewed as one instance of generalised Relativized Minimality effects, it is found only in the case of wh-questions as opposed to other types of A'-movement (e.g. Topic, Focus).

In "Symmetries and asymmetries in multiple checking" (pp.17-26) Cedric Boeckx extends Chomsky's (2000) insight of Case and phi-features being the two sides of the same coin, to Focus/Wh relation claiming that the two features, although not identical, have the same function. He further contends that focus feature being interpretable on the Probe (but not on the Goal) can be checked multiply. The opposite holds for the wh-feature: it is interpretable on the Goal, but not on the Probe. The uninterpretable wh-feature of the Probe can only be valued once by the closest element, from which follows the Superiority effects in wh-feature checking. Thus the difference between Focus and Wh-features is attributed not to their intrinsic properties, but to their placement. Crucial for this proposal is the distinction between Match and Agree, the latter incorporating the former plus a Valuation procedure. Move can take place under Match independently of Agree.

In "On wh-islands and obligatory wh-movement contexts in South Slavic" (pp.27-50) Zeljko Boskovic presents more evidence that multiple wh-fronting (MWF) languages, namely Serbo-Croatian (SC) and Bulgarian, do not present a uniform phenomenon. This time the author re-examines the case of wh-island extraction. First, Boskovic demonstrates that Bulgarian is not totally immune from wh-island effects as claimed by Rudin (1988): wh-arguments, but not wh-adjuncts, can be extracted out of wh-islands. Secondly, he shows that some non MWF languages (e.g. Swedish) exhibit the same pattern in wh-island extraction as Bulgarian. Moreover, Boskovic illustrates that in certain instances SC allows multiple filled Spec SP. However, the presence of multiple Specs does not make it possible to escape wh-island effect in SC. Based on this discussion Boskovic suggests excluding wh-islands extraction criterion as a qualifying ground for MWF dichotomy. Yet Boskovic fails to answer the question of why Bulgarian and SC exhibit different behaviour in wh-argument extraction out of wh-island. He leaves the answer to be determined and, instead, reiterates his previous claim that all the differences between the two languages can be traced to a single distinction in the "lexical properties of the interrogative C-head, more precisely, the PF affix status of the Bulgarian interrogative C" (p.27).

Molly Diesing in "On the nature of multiple fronting in Yiddish" (pp. 51-76) examines two wh-question strategies in Yiddish (single vs. multiple fronting). Diesing illustrates that although both strategies convey the same (pair-list reading in all cases) reading the two differ in their syntactic properties: multiple, but not single, wh-fronting exhibits Superiority effects. Diesing suggests that multiple wh-fronting is a genuine instance of wh-movement to [+multiple Spec, CP] that can only originate from an A-position. The closest to [Spec, CP] wh-phrase must move to Spec CP first hence Superiority constraint. Single wh-fronting in matrix clauses is a result of wh-scrambling to IP, which is immune to Superiority. The wh-feature is checked a la Boskovicvia LF insertion of the C-head. Embedded questions have [-multiple Spec, CP] and wh-movement in embedded questions is a subject to Superiority. Diesing concludes that Yiddish presents a hybrid type of MWF languages as it does not properly fit in any specific class yet exhibits certain characteristics peculiar of several of them.

In "On the morphosyntax of wh-movement" (pp.77-98) Marcel den Dikken proposes that wh-movement in English is an instance of Focus movement (at least in root clauses). The author presents the following arguments. First, observing that in matrix clauses Topic can precede wh-phrases ("?To Mary, what should we give?") den Dikken concludes that a wh-phrase appears lower than [Spec,CP], presumably in the Focus position. Modifying Kayne's (1998) original proposal that non-wh focus phrases can undergo focus movement followed by the remnant TP movement (VP-preposing) den Dikken suggests that in multiple wh-questions "in-situ" wh-phrase moves to a Focus position first and then TP moves over it bringing the other wh-phrase to a structurally higher position. In single wh-questions a wh-phrase also moves to [Spec, FocusP], however remnant TP movement does not happen because TP would be a harmful intervener between [+wh] C and the wh-phrase in [Spec, FocusP]. Considering obligatory wh-relative fronting den Dikkenin adopts the view that relatives are predicates of NPs they are construed with. In order to establish a predicate relation operator movement of a wh-phrase to embedded Spec, CP is necessary. The trigger of movement is the morphological wh-feature of C. Den Dikken's argument is built in part on the assumption that multiple wh-questions can receive only a single pair echoic reading when the fronted wh-constituent is a wh-the-hell expression, as in (1):

(1) "?Who the hell is in love with who?"

The author seems to overlook the following situation: a speaker providing new information says that "John is in love with Mary, Jim is in love with Sue and Bill is in love with Monika", a hearer totally lost in this information posits (1). It is a totally legitimate question which requires pair-list reading in spite of the presence of "wh-the-hell".

Kleanthes K. Grohmann ("German is a multiple wh-fronting language!" (pp. 99-130)) considers constructions with multiple interrogation in German and suggests that this language should be included in the typology of MWF languages. Grohmann observes that German patterns with Bulgarian and Rumanian in that in all contexts of multiple wh-questions obligatory pair-list reading is achieved. This, according to the Hagstrom-Boskovic's approach, implies that all wh-phrases undergo genuine wh-movement to CP as opposed to mere wh-fronting or wh-scrambling. Indeed the author presents syntactic evidence for A'-movement of both wh-phrases (intervention effects, parasitic gap, weak crossover). However, unlike Bulgarian, German never exhibits Superiority effects. Superiority condition can be escaped if wh-phrases are D-linked. Grohmann illustrates that this is the case in German where multiple wh-phrases must be D-linked. This means that multiple wh-questions in German can never be a "true" request for "new information". Thus Grohmann concludes that in multiple wh-questions German moves both wh-phrases to two distinct focus positions within CP.

Youngmi Jeong ("Deriving Anti-Superiority effects: Multiple wh-questions in Japanese and Korean" pp. 131-140) offers a minimalist explanation of Anti-Superiority and additional wh-effects. The author rejects the view (Watanabe 1992, Saito 1994) that these effects come from the violation of Empty Category Principle, but claims that they are determined by three factors: no adjunction can proceed to the right (Kayne 1994); in multiple wh-questions more than one, but not all wh-phrases should front (Pesetsky 2000); CP-field includes several functional projections (Rizzi 1997). Building on these assumptions Jeong illustrates why the structure in (2) results in ungrammatical derivation and why grammaticality is restored when an additional wh-phrase is added, as in (3):

Contrary to the general assumption that Japanese and Korean are wh-in-situ languages, Jeong claims that wh-phrases in these languages do undergo wh-movement to the functional domain. An exception is 'why', which is base-generated in the functional projection.

In "Conjoined questions in Hungarian" (pp.141-160) Anikó Lipták considers wh-questions that contain multiple wh-phrases, but refer to a single incident, such as "Who saw Mary and when?". Lipták illustrates that Hungarian has two distinct patterns and the two "cannot be lumped together under a uniform syntactic analysis" (p.157). In the first type all wh-phrases occur preverbally, while in the second type the first wh-phrase appears preverbally, but the others are in a postverbal position introduced by a co-ordinator és 'and'. Lipták rejects previous elliptical clausal co-ordination analysis (Bánréti 1992) that assumes that the two derivations are parallel and that conjoined wh-phrases always result from the co-ordination of two clauses with ellipsis in either the first or the second conjunct. Instead she suggests that preverbal conjoined questions involve clause internal co-ordination of wh-phrases, hence the co-ordination relation is established within one and the same clause. In contrast, postverbal conjoined questions are instances of multiclausal co-ordination accompanied by ellipsis. Arguing for an X' theoretic approach to co-ordination Lipták claims that asymmetric relation holds between the two conjuncts (the two wh-phrases within the same clause or the two conjoined clauses). The first conjunct c-commands the second but not vice versa. However, this conclusion is reached based on a single case of wh-subject and which-phrase interaction, as in (4) and (5):

Notice that asymmetry disappears if both wh-phrases are adjuncts, as in (6) and (7) (I am thankful to Edit Jakab for Hungarian data):

(6) Mi-vel törte be az ablak-ot és mikor? what-with broke-3sg PREF the window-acc and when "With what did he break the window and when?" Mikor törte be az ablakot és mivel? "When did he break the window and with what?"(7) Mivel és mikor törte be az ablak-ot? what-with and when broke-3sg PREF the window-acc "With what and when did he break the window?" Mikor és mivel törte be az ablakot?

In other words, as noted by the author, there are still many questions that need to be addressed.

Persian wh-questions seem to posit a problem for the Minimalist theory, as this wh-in-situ language allows optional wh-scrambling, scrambled wh-phrases being subject to Superiority Constraint. Moreover, multiple wh-questions require pair-list reading. These problems are resolved by Ahmad R. Lotfi in "Persian wh-riddles" (pp.161-186). Adopting Hagstrom's (1998) proposal Lotfi assumes that Persian has a phonetically null Q-marker which originates with the lowest wh-phrase and undergoes subsequent movement to the functional domain resulting in pair-list reading in all cases. Scrambled wh-phrases move to a lower than CP projection being driven by Focus feature. Superiority effects are caused by different reasons. Thus subject/object violation does not result from Superiority constraint per se but from Case assignment requirement: object cannot move/be scrambled from the case assigning verb unless case requirement is satisfied in an alternative way (by ra-morpheme that cliticised to an object as -ro/o). As for "true" Superiority cases Lotfi proposes that a wh-adjunct cannot cross a wh-object argument. Moreover the timing of scrambling plays a crucial role: wh-arguments scramble before Q-marker movement, while wh-adjuncts scramble after Q-movement. Hence the two types of movement (wh-argument vs. wh-adjunct) differ not in their properties, but in the time when move occurs in relation to the Q-marker.

There are a number of questions that arise and are left unaccounted, thus if "adjuncts need no case-marking to license their scrambling" (p.182) and scrambling is common in Persian, why can wh-adjuncts not be scrambled over wh-subject:

(8) *Koja ki raft? where who went "Who went where?"

Another question concerns the landing site of scrambled wh-objects. It seems that they can appear in both A and A' positions, i.e. before and after subjects, the unmarked order being subject +place/time +object +verb:

Lara Reglero's paper "Non-wh-fronting in Basque" (pp.187-227) presents an account of wh-question formation in Basque. Basque employs single and multiple wh-fronting strategies, both subject to Superiority Constrain. Wh-movement in this language is argued to be an instance of focus-movement (Ortiz de Urbina 1995). Assuming close connection between Topicalization and D-Linking Reglero suggests that in case of single wh-fronting the "in-situ" wh-phrase is D-linked or Topicalized, hence it undergoes Topic movement to a position following the verb, which in turn moved to the Focus Projection. Fronted wh-phrase, not being D-linked moves to Focus position preceding the verb. For multiple wh-fronting questions she claims that closest to the verb wh-phrase is focused, while the wh-phrase to the left of it is topicalized. Thus all wh-phrases move to the left periphery, both Topic and Focus are hosted in the same projection, which Reglero calls DeltaP.

Some aspects of the analysis raise certain questions, thus it is not clear why the Topic feature of wh-phrases must be checked obligatory, but checking of the Topic feature of non-wh-elements is optional (it can be scrambled). Is such factor as "discourse related" a sufficient ground for one head being able to license two distinct functional features such as Topic and Focus? Moreover, can the same head have different specification: Attract-all-discourse and Attract-1Topic? And a more general question: how far can we stretch the notion of "discourse related"?

To test whether a wh-phrase is D-linked Reglero uses Pesetsky's (1987) 'the hell' strategy and den Dikken's application of this test: aggressively non-D-linked 'the hell' is incompatible with D-linked wh-phrase. However, Reglero disregards one property of 'the hell' expression pointed out by den Dikken (same volume): 'the hell' needs to be licensed and this licensing occurs in the Focus projection. In other words it is not the case that leftmost wh-phrase must be D-linked, it is the case that 'the-hell' expression must be focused licensed.

The paper "Malagasy as an optional multiple wh-fronting language" (pp. 229-254) by Joachim Sabel discusses different wh-question strategies employed by this Western Austronesian language. Malagasy exhibits full and partial wh-movement in single wh-questions, and it allows wh-in-situ as well. In multiple questions in Malagasy one wh-phrase can be fronted and the other(s) remain in situ, alternatively all wh-expression can stay in-situ or be fronted. Sabel argues that full wh-movement in Malagasy is triggered by a strong Focus feature, when this feature is selected for computation being assigned to respective functional heads and wh-elements in the numeration. If a numeration contains a wh-expletive which is directly merged in C, then wh-movement will be partial as the relevant feature in matrix C is checked by expletive. Accordingly, if no [+strong] Focus feature is selected, no wh-movement will occur, as no feature checking is required. For the case of multiple wh-fronting Sabel suggests that similar to Bulgarian, wh-phrases in Malagasy prior to A'-movement form a wh-cluster and raise to the left periphery as a single unit. Sabel also discusses different constraints existing in single and multiple wh-questions in Malagasy. Thus surface optionality in wh-question formation in Malagasy is the result of different numerations. However, the optionality question is not resolved completely, as one language allows two instantiations (strong and weak) of the same feature.

In "Multiple wh-fronting in Serbo-Croatian matrix questions and the matrix sluicing construction" (pp.255-284) Sandra Stjepanovic examines multiple wh-fronting in SC. Stjepanovic argues that SC has two focus positions: one located above TP and the other between TP and VP; and that wh-movement in SC is driven by the Focus feature. She further illustrates that Superiority effects found in some short distance null C matrix questions (that is, context where Superiority should not be observed) result from sluicing with multiple wh-remnants or multiple sluicing. Stjepanovic first presents evidence that elliptical constructions with wh-questions in SC are results of multiple sluicing, but not gapping, and then demonstrates that sluicing of multiple wh-remnants is wh-movement to Spec, CP followed by IP deletion. The fact that wh-phrases move to Spec, CP explains their behaviour regarding Superiority effects.

DISCUSSION The book is interesting in that it provides a large amount of empirical data on multiple wh-fronting including widely discussed languages, such as Bulgarian, Serbo-Croatian and Hungarian, as well as less studied languages such as Basque, Malagasy, Persian, Yiddish. Those who do research in this area can find a number of interesting cross-linguistic facts. All the papers deal explicitly with the phenomenon of multiple wh-fronting addressing the issue from different perspectives. In fact many papers are interrelated, as the authors come to similar conclusions yet based on the analysis of different linguistic phenomena and on different lines of argumentation. In that I agree with the authors that papers in the volume "are best appreciated when put together" (p.8). Thus both den Dikken and Grohmann entertain the view that traditionally classified single wh-movement languages, such as English and German, in fact move all wh-phrases to the left periphery. Similarly in Lotfi's and Diesing's analyses obligatory pair-list reading in multiple wh-questions in Persian and Yiddish results not from genuine wh-movement, but wh-focus fronting with Q-marker being attached to the lowest wh-phrase. Again the two authors use different arguments to build their hypothesis.

All the papers in the book point to the existing interaction between wh-questions and focus, thus confirming Horvath's (1986) original insight that wh-movement can be driven by the focus consideration. Another area of research extensively discussed in the book is the extended structures of the left periphery (Rizzi 1997). It is obvious that it needs further articulation (see Rizzi 2001) as it appears that more elements move to the functional domain than it was originally thought. The book offers up-to-date analyses of the topic, incorporating the latest hypotheses developed in the Minimalist theory. It contributes to our understanding of the mechanism of multiple wh-questions. Moreover it refines the existing typology of multiple wh-questions. The contributors also raise a number of questions, hence identifying issues for further research in the area.

Having said that, I have to admit that proposals presented in the papers differ in their novelty, originality and quality. Although all the papers clearly articulate the problems they want to address and the goal they aim to achieve, in my view, not every contributor is successful in convincing the reader that the advocated approach is on the right track.

There is one general comment regarding the use of the linguistic data. Historian E. H. Carr once wrote: "The facts (in our case language data) are really not at all like fish on the fishmonger's slab. They are like fish swimming about in a vast and sometimes inaccessible ocean; and what the historian (or linguist) catches will depend, partly on chance, but mainly on what part of the ocean he chooses to fish in and what tackle he chooses to use -- these two factors being, of course, determined by the kind of fish he wants to catch" (p.18). In linguistics the situation is even more complicated than in history as language allows great creativity. "Creative, exploratory expressions are made constantly by speakers ... to facilitate communication as in changes to avoid ambiguity or to foster easier identification of discourse roles" (Harris and Campbell 1995:54). The vast majority of such expressions are never repeated, yet they still can be registered by researchers. Since there are no "strict criteria" for language acceptability, very often grammaticality judgements are at the mercy of a researcher.

In a few papers of the book the reader can come across comments like "data are not crystal-clear" (Diesing p.69), "there seems to be disagreement among speakers..." (Grohmann, p.127), "neither sentence is impeccable" (den Dicken p.96). Of course, the fact is that in real life we do not deal with "ideal speakers" and "ideal language". However, couple of time there was an impression that the data was pushed to accommodate a hypothesis. Thus den Dikken uses a modified example from Kayne (1998) "*I spoke to only John.", which is starred as fully ungrammatical. Yet in the original paper Kayne notes that evaluating the sentence "?John spoke to only Bill." "speakers vary substantially in their judgements, ranging from fully acceptable to fully unacceptable" (p.148). The worst in this respect is Reglero's paper. In the body of the text, on page 194, the author gives example (23) from Basque "Nork zer erosi du?" ("Who bought what?"). It is followed by endnote 9 "note that some speakers disallow (23)"(p.221). The sentence in (23) is not even marked "?" as marginally acceptable. Reglero further presents an ungrammatical sentence in (24): "*Zer erosi du nork?" (What did who buy?). Again there is an endnote: "According to Etxepare and Ortiz de Urbina (24) is grammatical" (p.221). If you do not know Basque than you are in trouble! In endnote 29 the author refers the reader to the data in her previous work, however admitting that the data "are also inconclusive". She comes to a conclusion that wh-phrases do not move to Spec, SP in Basque based on the fact that one (!) out of three informants allowed a single-pair answer. Of course the question arises about the validity of a hypothesis which is built on such doubtful data. This in no sense means that one should not explore beyond the "pure grammatical" and put forward daring proposals, maybe just provide more data whose acceptability status is higher than "marginally acceptable".

There are a couple of minor errors:In Boeckx' paper there is a mix up with Japanese proper names in example 6 (p.19): "Hanako introduces professor Tanaka to Mary". Analysing it on the next page Boeckx notes: "if an object honorific marker surfaces on the verb, we obtain the odd interpretation that Taro respects Mary" (indeed odd!).Jeong in his paper refers the reader to a syntactic tree represented in (16), which never appears in the article.

Rizzi, Luigi (2001) On the Position 'Int(errogative)' in the Left Periphery of the Clause. In Guglielmo Cinque & Giampaolo Salvi (eds.) Current Studies in Italian Syntax: Essays Offered to Lorenzo Renzi. Elsevier Amsterdam, pp.287-296.

Simpson, Andrew (2000) Wh-Movement and the Theory of Feature Checking. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

ABOUT THE REVIEWER:
ABOUT THE REVIEWER Olga Zavitnevich-Beaulac is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow in the Asymmetry Project in the Département de Linguistique at UQAM. She received her Ph.D. from the University of Cambridge, UK. Her research interests include theoretical and comparative syntax with a focus on syntax and morphology of wh and yes/no-questions, as well as problems of optionality in natural languages.